Letter: Flouride Isn’t Safe or Effective

Your editorial advocating the use of fluoride in Bradford’s water contained misinformation, a lack of rudimentary research and way too much condescension. Somebody “called this in” without doing their homework.

Had the writer bothered to fact check, he would have learned that the “out-of-town anti-fluoride activist” was actually a concerned Bradford resident.

Had the writer attended the open meeting, he would have learned that recent medical studies (Colquhoun, Limeback, Yiamonyiannis, Diesendorf and Peckham, to name a few) have shown that it is not fluoride in water but rather topical fluoride that has contributed to declining decay rates, that Bradford’s fluoride was imported from China and that for several segments of the population systemic fluoride is dangerous (diabetics, those with impaired kidney function, infants and young children).

∎ Bennington, Brattleboro and Plainfield, Vt, have discontinued fluoridation, along with Honolulu, Salt Lake City, Flagstaff, Billings, San Antonio, Calgary, Quebec City, Ithaca, Albany and over 100 other cities. The Burlington Board of Health has called for the discontinuation of adding fluoride to Burlington’s water.

I applaud the Bradford Water and Sewer commissioners for looking at all the current studies and latest data. While the editorial writer would have us regress to the 1950s when any statement by an authority figure such as the Centers for Disease Control was accepted without question, we are in the 21st century now. Fluoride in drinking water is neither effective nor safe, and its long-term harmful effects are now starting to be documented.

While the rest of the world is fretting about electromagnetic waves, genetically modified food and other perceived health threats associated with contemporary living, the town of Bradford, Vt., has taken a step back in time by rekindling a public health debate that we thought had been settled long ago — whether fluoride should be added to the municipal water supply …